In recent history, there have been many situations internationally that have called on the world to decide on the legitimate government of a country. This is usually determined by diplomatic recognition. Since the end of the First World War and following the Second World War several nations have come into existence that plagued the sensibilities of the diplomats of major nations. The breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Germany, redrew the map of both the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
The Eastern European countries such as Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia have since broken up into ethno-centric nations, others having been occupied by the former Soviet Union, such as the Balkan states and Poland now thrive as independent nations. Others such as Ukraine and Georgia struggle with Russian interference and independence movements. In these we see some of the diplomatic problems that plague mapmakers. In the case of the Ukraine and Georgia most of the world rejects the Russian occupation and refuses to recognize the breakaway sections.
What were we thinking?
The United States policy makers were warned in October 1990 of the coming breakup of Yugoslavia.
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) 15–90:
Yugoslavia will cease to function as a federal state within a year, and will probably dissolve within two. Economic reform will not stave off the breakup. [...] A full-scale inter-republic war is unlikely, but serious inter-communal conflict will accompany the breakup and will continue afterward. The violence will be intractable and bitter. There is little the United States and its European allies can do to preserve Yugoslav unity.
As dire as the warning was, and how correct the assessment, it was not what the United States wanted and the State Department tried to work out a deal to keep the country united. As the separate regions voted for independence Secretary of State James Baker flew to Yugoslavia to try and convince them to give federation one more try. A single federated country was seen as a better alternative than several new nations, regardless of the NIE warning that there was little to stop the break-up.
The failure of the United States and Europe to accept the disintegration of Yugoslavia along ethnic and religious lines caused years of bloodshed and needless horrors. Had the West accepted the inevitable and work to ensure a peaceful breakup many lives may have been saved.
Have we learned?
In a recent conference in Washington DC a retired Army General was concerned that we have not learned from history:
“I tell you my biggest fear. My biggest fear is that the United States does not adjust our strategy going forward with regard to the KRG and Iraq, and if we do not adjust our strategy, and I hate to say this, but my fear is we're going to see another Yugoslavia. We're going to see a break-up that is going to lead to horrible, horrible tragedies, the deaths of innocent people.
“Unfortunately, again I go back to U.S. failings and NATO failings. We stood by for a long time and watched terrible things happen in the old Yugoslavia as these break-away nations were establishing themselves. And God forbid that that happen in the part of the world that we're talking about today.”
On the other side was the velvet divorce of Czechoslovakia, while many did not understand the reasoning behind the dissolution, both sides accepted it and there was no bloodshed. The diplomats however still had their say and voiced concern that the new countries would not be able to survive economically, an argument being made against an independent Kurdistan.
Given the US State Department’s history, the bureaucratic professionals will argue against recognition of an independent Kurdistan, but these are not normal times. The US involvement in Iraq sets up different conditions than in the past and they tend to argue against one another. US blood was spilled to bring down a dictator and free the Iraqi people, which argues for one Iraq. The Kurds on the other hand fought with US forces and have been the only true ally to the US in a country increasingly moving toward Americas enemies.
In addition, with Iran increasing power in the region, the United States will require a presence to offset this problem. Kurdistan offers the only friendly area for the United States to maintain this presence. In a recent conference in Washington, D.C., retired military members, academics and Kurdish leaders all advocated for a US military presence in the Kurdish region. This force can act as a ready reaction command to blunt any Iranian- or Sunni-backed terrorist force from gaining a foothold and as a tripwire to hold off Iranian or Turkish movements into the new Kurdish nation.
It took two treaties at the end of the First World War to set the boundaries of today’s Middle East and the only new country in the region since, Israel, was opposed by the US State and Defense Departments. President Harry Truman overrode his Secretaries and the United States was the first to recognize Israel. An effort must be undertaken to convince President Trump of the need to recognize Kurdistan.
Paul Davis is a retired US Army military intelligence and former Soviet analyst. He is a consultant to the American intelligence community specializing in the Middle East with a concentration on Kurdish affairs. Currently he is the president of the consulting firm JANUS Think in Washington D.C.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
